|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Harpyja
2
   |
Posted - 2015.06.15 15:23:00 -
[1] - Quote
I keep saying this over and over, but nobody listens and we keep getting stuck with the same problem of having large blasters be OP, all the time.
The problem lies in the fact that CCP can't make up their minds on what the turret should do. Should it be anti-infantry? Should it be anti-vehicle? Why not make it do both, with incredible efficiency! While the large railgun is stuck with its sole purpose of being AV and the large missile being its crippled child.
There's a reason why proto Maddies with ion cannons stomp enemy teams. Large blasters are the best large turrets at killing infantry and vehicles alike. Plus all of the maps and the large railgun's nerfed 300m range (thanks to a certain dropship pilot who I shall not name) add to the power of the large blaster. Almost everywhere that there is infantry to be slaughtered is in CQC, something which the large railgun shouldn't be good at. But these current maps force railguns into these close range engagements. What's even more ridiculous, is that an ion cannon melts through over 4.8k worth of hardened shield while a damage modded particle cannon with a heat sink can't even get a proto Maddy down to half armor in the same amount of time.
Even though that may seem like an armor vs shield issue (which it is, so come on CCP), it's also a large blaster issue. It's just good at killing everything, while the other turrets have clear drawbacks.
There is only one solution: make it be either anti infantry or anti vehicle. Not both. I'm tired of blaster Maddies ruling the battlefield since Uprising 1.0. (Except for the short break when missile tanks could quickly end them. That was balanced. You get so much power by putting a large blaster on a Maddy, but a large missile Gunnlogi was the absolute hard counter.)
Just imagine that the large missile turret's instagib ability was brought back. Sure, you could still call in a proto blaster Maddy, but now you also accepted the possibility of being instagibbed in return for being able to kill infantry and other vehicles.
But seeing as the return of the missile turret won't be happening (it's been nerfed since closed beta and it only had a moment to shine, why?), we have to look at the large blaster.
Either give vehicles a damage reduction towards it like small railguns did previously (lore wise, say that it shoots small caliber plasma rounds that are devastating to infantry but can't penetrate the shielding or armor of vehicles), which will make it anti infantry focused, or increase dispersion even more so that trying to kill infantry is a nightmare and solidifies its role as a true CQC vehicle destroyer. This would decrease its effective AV range, which would be a good thing for railguns and missiles to get a better range advantage in all of these maps that favor CQC.
Edit: formatting
"By His light, and His will"- The Scriptures, 12:32
|
Harpyja
2
|
Posted - 2015.06.15 20:46:00 -
[2] - Quote
Devadander wrote:The large blaster was nerfed many times. Now that it is finally usable again, NERF calls the pack...
We need to focus on a rail/missile/shield buff.
The hull progression is decent. Hulls are fair enough. Blasters are back, as is armor.
Bring the rest up and the blaster maddy won't dominate unless he has backup. At that point you have to push anyway.
Buff, not nerf.
I agree that it's better to bring everything else in line, but knowing CCP, the cycle of overbuffing will only continue. Instead of tweaking multiple things at once, it's better to tweak only one thing at a time.
I feel that the large missile and railgun are about roughly where they need to be. Tweaking the offensive power of the large blaster should also put armor HAVs more in line without directly touching their armor modules, seeing as most blaster HAVs are armor HAVs and a majority of armor HAVs are blaster HAVs. (A blaster on a shield HAV is just bad from personal experience, the hull doesn't allow the extra angle of depression for hitting infantry close to your vehicle, and a blaster armor HAV will annihilate a blaster shield HAV due to resistances)
"By His light, and His will"- The Scriptures, 12:32
|
Harpyja
2
|
Posted - 2015.06.16 13:52:00 -
[3] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:There is not a single turret in Dust 514 that constitutes a logical main tank gun.
The Blaster is for all intents and purposes a modern Autocanon lacking any explosive power, range, and firing as though it were a machinegun.
The Railgun lacks explosive force behinds it rounds and even so fires far to quickly.
The Missile Launcher is a .....well it's just not freaking appropriate for main battle tanks.
We are not here to discuss how logical and appropriate the turrets are. This is a sci-fi genre with laser weapons, shield technologies, interstellar travel, etc.
Though things have to be balanced for game purposes too. The turret mechanics are absolutely fine as they are. It's just the balance that still needs to be worked on.
If you want appropriate modern day tanks, go back to playing WoT or WT. Don't change New Eden just because *you* don't think the turrets are appropriate. I hope you don't play EVE, otherwise I can imagine you complaining that the turrets aren't appropriate. "These turrets, for how big they are, fire way too fast and aren't damaging enough." Or some other bull****.
"By His light, and His will"- The Scriptures, 12:32
|
Harpyja
2
|
Posted - 2015.06.16 16:31:00 -
[4] - Quote
Stefan Stahl wrote:Harpyja wrote:We are not here to discuss how logical and appropriate the turrets are. This is a sci-fi genre with laser weapons, shield technologies, interstellar travel, etc.
Though things have to be balanced for game purposes too. The turret mechanics are absolutely fine as they are. It's just the balance that still needs to be worked on. I find this very relevant. On the topic: I think the issues here are well known: - All turrets are supposed to be equally good at AV - I think I remember this as the stated design goal of the HAV rebalance thread. - Through a combination of mobility and DPS the blaster came out to be better at AV - it's the first iteration of the new model, stuff like that happens. - Due to the fire mode the blaster is still best at AI. This seems like an oversight that was never accounted for. Thus the large blaster is, in technical terms, OP as f*ck. I think this is a known issue, but it got pushed back by more awesome things to come. I've already stated my preferred scenario: Blasters are proficient at AI, rails dominate AV fights, missiles are hybrids. Infantry fights are escalated by calling in blaster tanks. Enemy team reacts by calling in a rails. Rail acts as a predator to blaster. As blaster population decreases, so does the population of rails because rails suck against infantry. Equilibrium is achieved until end of the match. I can't say anything on the "All turrets are equally good at AV". It is doable, but it won't help gameplay. To make it work the AI capabilities also need to be aligned. If fully implemented that means all turrets are equally useful in all situations and only taste or practice make the difference. I don't find that appealing - that's as if we tried to balance an HMG to be equally good at all ranges as a railrifle until only preference mattered. Hard counters (Blaster beats infantry, rail beats blaster) can be a good thing.
I keep saying that large blasters need to be AI aligned to be the initial escalation in order for HAVs to have a purpose. Otherwise if they were all purposed for AV with horrible AI abilities, then why call one in in the first place? But nobody listens.
I'm glad you also think blasters should be AI focused
"By His light, and His will"- The Scriptures, 12:32
|
Harpyja
2
|
Posted - 2015.06.17 14:27:00 -
[5] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Making HAVs more ineffective at shooting infantry is something I cannot support.
I forgot to add that I'd rather see large blasters changed to an AI role instead of an AV role
"By His light, and His will"- The Scriptures, 12:32
|
Harpyja
2
|
Posted - 2015.06.17 14:42:00 -
[6] - Quote
DeathwindRising wrote:Harpyja wrote:Stefan Stahl wrote:Harpyja wrote:We are not here to discuss how logical and appropriate the turrets are. This is a sci-fi genre with laser weapons, shield technologies, interstellar travel, etc.
Though things have to be balanced for game purposes too. The turret mechanics are absolutely fine as they are. It's just the balance that still needs to be worked on. I find this very relevant. On the topic: I think the issues here are well known: - All turrets are supposed to be equally good at AV - I think I remember this as the stated design goal of the HAV rebalance thread. - Through a combination of mobility and DPS the blaster came out to be better at AV - it's the first iteration of the new model, stuff like that happens. - Due to the fire mode the blaster is still best at AI. This seems like an oversight that was never accounted for. Thus the large blaster is, in technical terms, OP as f*ck. I think this is a known issue, but it got pushed back by more awesome things to come. I've already stated my preferred scenario: Blasters are proficient at AI, rails dominate AV fights, missiles are hybrids. Infantry fights are escalated by calling in blaster tanks. Enemy team reacts by calling in a rails. Rail acts as a predator to blaster. As blaster population decreases, so does the population of rails because rails suck against infantry. Equilibrium is achieved until end of the match. I can't say anything on the "All turrets are equally good at AV". It is doable, but it won't help gameplay. To make it work the AI capabilities also need to be aligned. If fully implemented that means all turrets are equally useful in all situations and only taste or practice make the difference. I don't find that appealing - that's as if we tried to balance an HMG to be equally good at all ranges as a railrifle until only preference mattered. Hard counters (Blaster beats infantry, rail beats blaster) can be a good thing. I keep saying that large blasters need to be AI aligned to be the initial escalation in order for HAVs to have a purpose. Otherwise if they were all purposed for AV with horrible AI abilities, then why call one in in the first place? But nobody listens. I'm glad you also think blasters should be AI focused why call in a tank? utility. mCRU, scanners small turrets for AI (as intended) Huge eHP and staying power to provide cover to assist infantry pushes.
theres a problem with making large blasters AI focused. if they suck vs vehicles, then you get the situation where tankers only call out the blaster tanks and then recall them whenever someone calls in an AV tanks. or worse, no one calls in tanks anymore because they cant protect themselves from other tanks. which infantry class is completely incapable of defending itself? no one would use that class. so it makes sense that all vehicles be capable of defending against vehicles. blaster simply needs its accuracy against smaller man-sized targets reduced by increasing dispersion. then adjust tracking as well if needed.
All those reasons you mentioned are done much better and more effectively with infantry.
mCRU: a scout (or any suit, but a scout is most effective) will be able to covertly drop multiple uplinks all over the place. The mCRU is limited to where the HAV can go and attracts lots of attention. Plus a HAV is a lot more expensive.
Scanners: smaller range, without any skills or vehicle bonuses towards them. Infantry scanners have longer range and have skills and dropsuit bonuses that help increase the effectiveness of scanners. Again, a HAV costs a lot more.
Small turrets for AI: almost any infantry player can be more effective at killing infantry than a gunner. Infantry can also get to a lot of places where HAVs can't, and that's where most of the objectives are. Heavies/sentinels are effective at defending or attacking objectives in closed spaces. Scouts are effective at stealthily taking out enemies. HAVs are anything but stealthy. Assaults are simply slayer suits.
And finally, huge EHP and staying power: yeah right. Read what a previous poster said on this. To add, shield HAVs can have a lot of EHP but they are incredibly ineffective at regaining shield. Drop its shield by even a quarter and a smart pilot will run away because their shield buffer is all they have to defend themselves, while armor HAVs have incredible armor regeneration. And all of those proto Marrugars that seem unkillable, they don't have mCRUs to gimp their fits.
"By His light, and His will"- The Scriptures, 12:32
|
Harpyja
2
|
Posted - 2015.06.18 14:05:00 -
[7] - Quote
KalOfTheRathi wrote:Blaster turrets are not OP. The Ion Cannon is balanced against PRO AV, but only barely. If there are more than two the tank needs to get away. Two can be iffy when they work together. The Neutron Blaster is almost balanced against ADV AV. However, it can't really kill a heavy unless he is a complete New Belle and stands still waiting for his forge to charge. In the open. In front of the tank. That is already firing at him. And has taken half his massive HP down. But isn't overheating. Overheating changes everything. As do aggressive Logis. They can nullify either a NB or IOC. The STD blaster and the blaster turret installation are pieces of junk. Useless, but reasonably priced. I was going to say better than nothing but that isn't really true. Nothing lets you get away or melee the operator to death. So, quit standing up in front to the big pointy thing that is spewing rounds at you.  Or blow the turret up, that's what I do. 
You didn't even read the thread, did you?
"By His light, and His will"- The Scriptures, 12:32
|
|
|
| |
|